https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92353
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92353
>From 699da64855f147708f153c30177a1d02a4e014f7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chuanqi Xu
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 12:37:16 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [Serialization] Read the initializer for interesting
static
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> I can reproduce the failure. The problem is that the CHECK line
>
> ```
> // CHECK: [[A_CALL:%[a-zA-Z0-9]+]] = call{{.*}}@_Z6MakeVR(
> ```
>
> assumes that a value is returned. On SystemZ, the return value is passed as
> `sret` argument, and the function itself returns
redstar wrote:
The lines you are trying to match are:
```
call void @_Z6MakeVR(ptr dead_on_unwind writable sret(<4 x float>) align
16 %tmp, float noundef %0, float noundef %1, float noundef %2, float noundef %3)
%4 = load <4 x float>, ptr %tmp, align 16
store <4 x float> %4, ptr @_ZN2
redstar wrote:
I can reproduce the failure. The problem is that the CHECK line
```
// CHECK: [[A_CALL:%[a-zA-Z0-9]+]] = call{{.*}}@_Z6MakeVR(
```
assumes that a value is returned. On SystemZ, the return value is passed as
`sret` argument, and the function itself returns `void`, so the pat
uweigand wrote:
I'm not seeing any failures with this patch on s390x with the regular check-all
and check-openmp tests. Do you have a link to the failures you were seeing in
the past (was that on the build bot?)?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92353
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
@JonasToth @redstar @uweigand @Everybody0523
Hi, this patch previously failed on clang-s390x-linux. I guess it is a pattern
mismatch failure but I can't reproduce it. I am not sure if I found the wrong
person. I find you from the SystemZ's group. I want to ask if you can v
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-modules
Author: Chuanqi Xu (ChuanqiXu9)
Changes
Close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/91418
Since we load the variable's initializers lazily, it'd be problematic if the
initializers dependent on each other. So here we try to load the
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92353
Close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/91418
Since we load the variable's initializers lazily, it'd be problematic if the
initializers dependent on each other. So here we try to load the initialize
